Absolutism Vs Constitutionalism: Power's Limits Explored

Absolutism and constitutionalism are two contrasting political systems that differ in their views on sovereignty and the role of the monarch. Absolutism, dominated by the power of a single ruler, often justifies its authority through the idea of ''divine right', with the monarch's word being law. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, emphasises the rule of law and the protection of individual rights, with sovereignty residing in a parliament rather than a monarch. This system promotes cooperation and compromise between different governing bodies. The Enlightenment's emphasis on reason, individualism, and liberty challenged absolutism and paved the way for the rise of constitutionalism and democracy.

Explore related products

Great Political Theories V.1: A Comprehensive Selection of the Crucial Ideas in Political Philosophy from the Greeks to the Enlightenment (Harper Perennial Modern Thought)

$11.21 $19.99

Great Political Theories V.2: A Comprehensive Selection of the Crucial Ideas in Political Philosophy from the French Revolution to Modern Times (Harper Perennial Modern Thought)

$12.23 $19.99

Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy

$11.89 $23

The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom

$28.13 $42

Political Theory: An Introduction

$43.99 $46.75

The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory

$62.07 $67

Sovereignty: Absolutism places sovereignty with the monarch, while constitutionalism places it with parliament

Absolutism and constitutionalism represent two contrasting approaches to governance, with differing views on the source of sovereignty.

Absolutism places sovereignty with the monarch, who is often believed to be chosen by God and thus has absolute authority. In absolutist states, the monarch's word is law, and their power is centralised and unchallenged. Notable examples include Louis XIV of France, who used mercantilist economic policies to fund his extravagant expenditures, such as Versailles, and Charles I of England, whose belief in the divine right of kings led to conflict with Parliament and ultimately, the English Civil War.

On the other hand, constitutionalism places sovereignty with parliament, emphasising the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. Constitutional states promote cooperation and compromise between the monarch and other governing bodies, rather than the centralised power structure of absolutism. The political ideas of John Locke, who argued for a social contract between the people and the government, were influential among parliamentarians during the English Civil War.

The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individualism, and liberty, further challenged the idea of absolute monarchy and paved the way for the rise of democracy and constitutionalism.

The conflict between absolutism and constitutionalism has historically led to political tensions and conflicts, as exemplified by the English Civil War, where the Royalists, supporting King Charles I, clashed with the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell.

Centralisation of power: Absolutism centralises power with the monarch, while constitutionalism emphasises cooperation and compromise

Absolutism and constitutionalism represent contrasting approaches to governance, particularly concerning the centralisation of power. Absolutism centralises power with the monarch, who wields absolute authority and is often exempt from legal constraints. The Tsar in Russia serves as an example, where all decisions were made by the Tsar and their advisors, without a separation of powers. The Tsar's authority was deemed divine, chosen by God, and any challenge to their power was seen as an offence against God. Serfdom, where the majority of the population were considered property and lacked rights, further reinforced the centralised power structure.

In contrast, constitutionalism emphasises cooperation and compromise by distributing power across different governing bodies. It upholds the rule of law and safeguards individual rights, challenging the notion of absolute monarchy. The English Civil War, which took place between 1642 and 1651, exemplifies the conflict between absolutism and constitutionalism. King Charles I, an Anglican, clashed with the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell, who included Puritans seeking to reform the Church of England. The Parliamentarians embraced the political ideas of John Locke, advocating for a social contract between the people and the government.

The outcome of the English Civil War marked a shift towards constitutionalism. Following the beheading of Charles I for treason due to his failure to heed Parliament, a Bill of Rights was established, limiting the power of monarchs. This led to the Glorious Revolution, where William III and Mary II of the Netherlands were invited to rule jointly, with Parliament established as the governing body of England, independent of undue monarchical influence.

The Enlightenment also played a pivotal role in challenging absolute monarchy. The emphasis on reason, individualism, and liberty during this period paved the way for the rise of democracy and constitutionalism. Economic philosophies, such as mercantilism, which promoted domestic production and limited imports, could serve the interests of absolute monarchs by enhancing their wealth and funding extravagant projects. However, the expansion of colonial empires and the development of plantations in colonies contributed to the economic and social backwardness of certain regions, such as Russia, which lagged behind Western Europe in industrialisation and modernisation.

While absolutism centralises power with the monarch, constitutionalism diffuses power across various institutions and safeguards individual liberties. Absolutism often leads to conflicts between the monarch and other governing bodies, as witnessed in the case of King Charles I and the English Parliament. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, fosters cooperation and compromise, seeking to balance the powers of different authorities within a framework of laws and rights.

Rule of law: Constitutionalism values the rule of law and the protection of individual rights

Absolutism and constitutionalism are two contrasting ideologies that represent different approaches to governance. While absolutism emphasises the power of the monarch and the centralisation of power, constitutionalism values the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

Constitutionalism upholds the principle of the rule of law, where no one is above the law, including the monarch. It establishes a system of checks and balances, where power is distributed among different branches of government, and no single individual or entity wields absolute power. This system ensures that the rights and liberties of individuals are protected and safeguarded from arbitrary or authoritarian rule.

In a constitutional framework, the power resides with an elected or representative body, such as a parliament or an assembly, rather than a single monarch. This distribution of power allows for a more inclusive and representative form of governance, where decisions are made through discussion, cooperation, and compromise. It also enables the establishment of mechanisms to hold those in power accountable and prevent the abuse of power.

The rule of law, as valued by constitutionalism, provides a framework for resolving disputes and enforcing rights. It ensures that laws are applied and interpreted impartially and consistently, protecting individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. This framework contributes to social stability and predictability, as citizens can understand their rights and obligations and expect a consistent application of the law.

Additionally, constitutionalism promotes the protection of individual rights, including civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as economic and social rights. By guaranteeing these rights, constitutionalism safeguards the freedom and dignity of individuals, allowing them to pursue their own interests and aspirations without undue interference from the state.

The protection of individual rights under constitutionalism also extends to due process and fair trial rights. This means that individuals are guaranteed a fair and impartial hearing if they are accused of a crime, and their rights are protected throughout the legal process. This aspect further reinforces the rule of law and ensures that the power of the state is exercised justly and lawfully.

Explore related products

Introduction to Political Theory

$41.59 $51.99

The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory

$44.84 $69

A History of Political Theories, from Rousseau to Spencer

$0.99 $27.95

Theories of Political Economy

$17.5 $37

The Political Theory Field Guide: or, How to Think for Yourself in a World of Mediocre, Not Very Good, Answers from the Internet

$10

Issues in Political Theory

$46.78 $91

Divine right: Absolute monarchs claim power by divine right, while constitutionalism doesn't recognise this

Absolutism and constitutionalism represent two contrasting approaches to governance. Absolutism centres on the power of the monarch and the centralisation of authority, with absolute monarchs claiming power by divine right. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, does not recognise divine right and instead emphasises the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

Absolute monarchs claim that their power is derived from divine right, arguing that their authority is granted by God. This belief was held by Charles I of England, who attempted to rule as an absolute monarch, leading to conflicts with Parliament and, ultimately, the English Civil War. Similarly, in Russia, the Tsar was believed to be chosen by God, with his authority considered absolute and unbound by laws or constitutions. Any attempt to limit the power of an absolute monarch through a parliament or constitution was seen as a challenge against God.

In contrast, constitutionalism rejects the notion of divine right and asserts that sovereignty resides with the parliament or a governing body, rather than a single monarch. This shift towards constitutionalism was influenced by the Enlightenment, which emphasised reason, individualism, and liberty, challenging the idea of absolute monarchy.

The difference in the recognition of divine right between absolutism and constitutionalism is fundamental to their respective approaches to governance. Absolutism centralises power in the hands of the monarch, who is believed to be above any laws or constitutions. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, distributes power and emphasises cooperation and compromise between different governing bodies, prioritising the rule of law and individual rights.

The recognition of divine right in absolutism has significant implications for the relationship between the monarch and the governed. Absolute monarchs claim unquestionable power and are not bound by any legal or constitutional constraints. This can lead to conflicts with other governing bodies, as seen in the case of Charles I, who attempted to raise revenue without parliamentary consent, resulting in widespread resentment.

Economic philosophy: Absolutism can serve the interests of monarchs through economic approaches like mercantilism

Absolutism and constitutionalism represent opposing approaches to governance. Absolutism concentrates power in the hands of an absolute monarch, who is often justified by the claim of divine right. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, emphasises the rule of law and the protection of individual rights, with sovereignty residing in a parliament or other governing body.

Economic philosophy can be used to serve the interests of absolute monarchs. From the 16th to the 18th centuries, European nations, including France, followed an economic philosophy called mercantilism. This philosophy advocated for the production of a nation's own goods and the limiting of imports from other countries, with the goal of increasing national wealth by preserving revenue in the form of bullion. Mercantilism served the interests of monarchs like Louis XIV of France, who, along with his finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, used it to establish France as a manufacturer of luxury goods and fund extravagant projects like Versailles.

Mercantilism also contributed to the expansion of colonial empires, as European nations sought to cultivate raw materials in their colonies for manufacturing in their home countries. This approach was objected to by economists like Adam Smith, but it nonetheless served the economic interests of absolute monarchs.

In contrast to the centralisation of power under absolutism, constitutionalism promotes a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. This can be seen in the English Civil War, where Parliamentarians, supported by large landowners and religious dissenters, clashed with King Charles I, who believed in his divine right to rule and was unwilling to share power. The conflict ended with the beheading of Charles I and a short interregnum period, followed by the Glorious Revolution, which established Parliament as the governing body of England, independent of undue monarchical influence.

The Enlightenment further challenged the idea of absolute monarchy by emphasising reason, individualism, and liberty, paving the way for the rise of democracy and constitutionalism.

Frequently asked questions